I've had the idea for a while now that given the way F3P planes fly at a noticeable tail low attitude in level flight that perhaps there are a couple things that could be done to minimize that.
My "theory" is that the squat is partially due to trying to keep speed to a minimum. I saw first hand when AC Glenn flew his new plane last year that it flew noticeably faster than Joseph Szczurs planes and at first he liked that but in the end he decided not to fly the faster plane, but I'd guess for more reasons than the speed.
Flying my 55gram Supertrino I see it too flys faster then my 45gram Expediton and makes me want to slow it down by flying at a more nose high attitude. This tells me a lighter plane will flying more slowly ,and if flown faster, there should be less squat. The obvious issue with flying extra slow from a very light plane is making the time limit.

So I'm wondering if a possible solution to squat is to build larger and also throttle up Now that removable wings are becoming common, transport size is less of an issue and I've alway hear it said, larger presents better.

So my question: does it make sense to scale, say J. Szczurs Expedition up 10% to 1meter using the same structure which will make a plane proportionally lighter in terms of wing loading to minimize squat and get the bonus of presenting a bit better?

Smaller, smaller. Not larger.

I would think that no matter what the wing loading is a flat wing will have to have positive incidence to fly. A possible solution would possibly be to design the paint job to have a negative appearance to the water line so that when the tail droops the visual look will be that it is flying with zero incidence.

Agree of course with positive incidence but seems many F3P planes are flown at some pretty large AOAs. I'm considering options to reduce that significantly.

Flat flying surfaces might have something to do with it. Undercamber would flatten out the incidence, but then you'd have no inverted performance.

way too off topic. (deleted)

Well Gordon and everyone, some clarification seems in order.

First with zero incidence wings/tails using a flat bottom airfoil both the wing and tail support the weight the CG places on them because they fly at a positive AOA. Our CG choices are dictated mostly by needing a neutral handling plane which then dictates horizontal stabilier area.
A lifting tail can only reduce the AOA of the wing at the expense of lift at any given speed. Our control of AOA is limited to two factors basically, area and weight on that area, assuming a given airspeed.

It also follows that with fixed weight and area, flying faster reduces the required AOA to fly level.

So I was asking those who compete if it makes sense to slow the plane down by decreasing the wing loading- lets say 25% less loading. This will allow the same AOA at a 25% lower airspeed. THEN use throttle to fly 25% faster at a 25% lower AOA. The relationship of AOA vs speed vs wing loading may not be linear but I'm talking principals not precise values.

At the end of the day, this is mostly an intellectual question which partially asks if judges dont like seeing planes fly dragging their tails. While I dont compete, I do try to think about the factors involved in being competitive. One of my favorite ways to evaluate an idea is to exaggerate the situation, in this case how would judges react if you flew around in a harrier attitude? Conversely, would a plane that flew very "flat" be considered to present better?

Steve,
Now I'm following you better. You said pretty much the same thing in your first post. I just didn't read it carefully enough.

(too much off topic, deleted. I should have read first post better)

Is this what you mean?

Second Flight with the FTM Frästechnik Yonki XL by Rolf Heiden (2 min 40 sec)

No Matt Brewer, that plane is a missile compared to what I'm referring to. Not even coax driven.

Pretty much the opposite of a 40 gram F3P plane. Does not look very big to me either, although it does seem larger than a standard Clik!.